going broke on 300K/year

[CA renter]

Dave,

I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who did not know the wives, but knew the men very, very well. This, from a long, long time ago.

Just to make things clear, I would never cheat with a married man, and never have. Just saying that most women have had experiences with cheaters, and other experiences with those who do not cheat — especially when we gals were in our much younger (and much hotter!) years. 😉 Contrary to what you might believe, many of us do know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[scaredyclassic]

most of you do not know the difference between a cheater and a faithful spouse.

great book LUST IN TRANSLATION, about infidelity around the world and various cultural attiudes. hilariously well writtena dn insightful

[davelj]

[quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]

File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.

What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.

It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”

I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up!

[davelj]

[quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]

File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.

What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.

It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”

I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up!

[davelj]

[quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]

File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.

What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.

It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”

I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up!

[davelj]

[quote=fredo4]
Defensive, defensive… [/quote]

File under: Pot calls kettle black. Yes, it’s always the OTHER person in the discussion that’s being defensive. Funny how that happens.

What I find amusing about this sort of discussion is that when I point out attributes of apes or prehistoric man or whathaveyou, most folks probably nod their heads and say, “Yes, yes, right…” Because when you point out characteristics of these groups, they’re just viewed as scientific observations about which there is little debate. There’s no positive or negative connotation. For example, no one views the alpha-male implications of primate societies (re: dominance/promiscuity of the alphas) as a good or bad thing. It’s just the way it is – just pure observation. As humans we want to believe that we have no stake in the implications.

It’s only when similar attributes – the ones that many humans view as culturally negative (promiscuity, for example) – get applied to HUMAN behavior that folks start getting upset. Because observation gets trumped by culture – “Hold on, this is getting a little personal now.”

I, for one, don’t view most humans’ inability to stay monogamous as a negative thing. It’s just a fact – neither positive nor negative. It just “is.” However, because YOU view it is a negative, YOU think that I’m a “grouch” (a negative implication) for believing this. This attitude says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

Personally, I love living among the earthlings – despite (or perhaps because of?) all the mental confusion – no matter what kind of craziness they stir up!

[Author]

Posts